As institutions of medical education make conscious efforts to promote an ethos of innovation, so too are we all reminded of the efficiency, productivity,
and creativity born of diversity.

Lip Kee/Flickr

I am sure of only one thing. When we look at the glory of stars and galaxies in the sky and the glory of forests and flowers in the living world around us,
it is evident that God loves diversity. Perhaps the universe is constructed according to a principle of maximum diversity.

--Freeman Dyson

Over the next month, nearly 20,000 students will report to M.D. degree-granting medical schools in the United States for their first day of class. This represents an
enrollment increase of nearly 25 percent in just 10 years.

One of the goals of many new and expanding medical schools has been to increase the numbers of
underrepresented minorities. Such policies are generally promoted to compensate for past discrimination and to ensure greater similarity between patient
populations and health professionals. But diversity and the grounds for supporting it run far deeper.

In fact, if there is a proposition on which we should tolerate very little diversity of opinion, it is this: Diversity is a matter of the utmost
importance. From individual minds and communities of learners to whole professions, cultures, and ecosystems, we need diversity, and we need more of it.
Diversity is the wellspring of our creativity and resilience. Without it, our lives would become not only monotonous but, in the words of one of the
founding philosophers of the enlightenment, Thomas Hobbes, "solitary, poor, and short."

The word diversity comes from the Latin roots meaning "to turn aside." The same root gives us the words divert and diverticulum -- the term physicians use to
describe an abnormal out-pouching from a structure such as the bowel or bladder. A diversion is a deviation from the expected path. By definition, every
fundamental innovation, whether in the biological or intellectual arena, represents just such a surprise. Our penchant for safety and predictability
sometimes leads us to regard unexpected outcomes as failures. Yet without such surprises, we would never learn anything truly new.

***

The idea of diversity has great biological significance. It serves as the foundation for Darwin's theory of natural selection. Without anatomic and
physiologic variation, there could be no competition and selection between species. If all organisms were alike, none would be fitter than any other, and
there would be no differences in traits for which selection could occur. Darwin also saw the spatiotemporal diversity of the environment as an essential
feature in providing many different niches that different species are able to occupy.

Consider a specific example of this evolutionary principle. For most of primate evolution over the past 10 million years or so, brains changed very little.
But during the past 1 million years, there has been a marked increase in brain size and complexity in the genus Homo, which includes our species, Homo
sapiens. Without this boost in brain power, human beings would not exist. The period during which this rapid brain development occurred coincides with a
time of remarkable climatic instability affecting continents such as Africa, the cradle of humanity.

Why would climatic instability affect brain size? So long as our ancestors inhabited an environment with little variation in temperature and rainfall,
there was little need for rapid adaptation. But during the past 1 million years, lakes repeatedly formed, dried up, and reformed, and temperatures
fluctuated widely, offering a powerful selective advantage to organisms that could adapt quickly to such changes. One way of adapting is to grow or shed
fir, but another is to think and innovate, fashioning shelters, clothing, and tools.

Solutions imposed by central authorities tend to be overly simplistic and insufficiently nuanced.

This is precisely what our human ancestors seem to have done. They developed techniques for constructing shelters, clothing themselves, hunting different
kinds of animals, collecting and storing water, growing and harvesting their own food, and passing on lessons in survival from one generation to another
using language. Increasingly diverse spatiotemporal environments favored individuals and groups that demonstrated increased mental capacity. The more
unpredictable the environment became, the greater the survival advantage adaptability conferred.

A similar principle applies to the development of individual organisms. Experimental studies of rats and apes have shown that organisms raised in richer,
more stimulating environments tend to have more complex brains, as manifested in their neural architecture. Their neurons display more synapses, and their
dendritic arbors, the receptive connections between neurons, are more complex. This is true of infants and children, but it is even true in adults. Adults
from richer environments also tend to exhibit greater behavioral complexity, including an increased capacity to learn.

These findings are important in our understanding of our brain's ability to withstand insults, a property often referred to as cognitive reserve. Compared
to people living in undemanding environments, those who are engaged in intellectually and socially diverse activities appear to be more resistant to brain
damage associated with conditions such as Alzheimer's disease and do a better job of maintaining their functional capabilities. Again, enriched
environments appear to be neurotrophic - nourishing to the brain.

***

An appreciation for the benefits of diversity was a central feature of the work of Elinor Ostrom, the recently deceased co-recipient of the 2009 Nobel
Prize in Economics. Studying contemporary human affairs, Ostrom discovered that centrally imposed, one-size-fits-all approaches to solving problems rarely
work. In other words, when it comes to a complex, widespread challenge such as water conservation or climate change, the best approaches often involve
polycentric action at multiple levels. Responses born of diversity tend to be more robust.

Ostrom argued against putting all of our eggs into one basket. Money is an important resource, but it is only one resource. Making money the sole criterion
of planning and assessment in a profession such as medicine or an industry such as healthcare tends to impoverish the culture of any institution that
commits to it. A strong academic medical center is not a centrally planned system that brooks no deviation from standard policies and procedures. Instead, it is one that tolerates and even celebrates the existence of multiple zones of innovation.

Conformity can be deceptively appealing, in part because it contributes to the impression that those in charge are doing a good job of getting all their
constituencies to align with a single vision. Such consistency can be mistaken for good leadership. But our appetite for making an organization consistent
and predictable often threatens its resilience and creativity. Ecosystems and cultures of low diversity tend to be not only boring but brittle, unable to
respond creatively to challenges and take advantage of new opportunities.

We need to educate health professionals and promote healthcare cultures that prefer to keep multiple options in view, where learners, teachers,
practitioners, and patients know each other well enough to feel comfortable sharing stories of their successes and failures. Each needs to be able to learn
how decisions have affected others, including the organization as a whole. We need to populate healthcare with people operating with different incentive
systems and evaluating their performance according to different kinds of metrics and appraisals.

***

A fully rationalized and efficient system - the holy grail of bureaucracies everywhere - never displays a substantial degree of diversity. If it did, it
would not be a bureaucracy. Solutions imposed by central authorities tend to be overly simplistic and insufficiently nuanced. As another Nobel laureate in
economics, Friedrich Hayek, argued, it is very difficult for someone making decisions from afar to grasp local conditions. The key to a flourishing culture
is to strike a balance between expecting everyone to do the same thing the same way every time and encouraging the exploration of new approaches.

The antithesis of a diversity-promoting approach is statistical process control, the brainchild of the original efficiency expert, Frederick Turner. It is
based on the premises that there is one right thing to do and one right way to do it. This renders every deviation from standard operating procedure a
failure. Such a system can be great for decreasing error rates in mass production, but it can prove disastrous when applied to communities where creativity
is essential. In such contexts, excessive standardization often stifles innovation.

Taking the lessons of biological diversity seriously means attempting to promote an ethos of experimentation, risk taking, and innovation. It also means
promoting responsibility. When we decide who to entrust with decision making authority, we should ask two simple questions. First, who has the strongest
incentive to get the decision right? Second, who will bear the costs of any mistakes? The best decisions are likely to be reached by those who are most
responsible, the ones who deal with the situation on a daily basis and who will live with the consequences.

Above all, we need to guard against the impulse to impose simple solutions on complex problems. As physicians know all too well, panaceas frequently fail.
Pathology consists not of one disease but hundreds of diseases, which in turn manifest differently in different patients. One-size-fits-all solutions are
not just ineffective but often counterproductive. An organization of clones will be rife with redundancy, while a diverse organization stands to reap the
rewards of complementarity. By prizing diversity, we promote not only success but humanity's full breadth and richness.

At this time of year, when a record number of new students are commencing their medical studies, the opportunity for reflection and conversation around
diversity could hardly be timelier. The increased presence of underrepresented minorities is an important aspect. But diversity itself, and the reasons for
promoting it, run far deeper.

In the final analysis, diversity is not primarily a compliance issue, attempting to meet minimum standards for the presence
of a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group. Ultimately, diversity is an excellence issue, concerning the full expression of human potential.

About the Author

Richard Gunderman, MD, PhD, is a contributing writer for The Atlantic. He is a professor of radiology, pediatrics, medical education, philosophy, liberal arts, and philanthropy, and vice-chair of the Radiology Department, at Indiana University. Gunderman's most recent book is X-Ray Vision.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

We can all agree that Millennials are the worst. But what is a Millennial? A fight between The New York Times and Slate inspired us to try and figure that out.

This article is from the archive of our partner .

We can all agree that Millennials are the worst. But what is a Millennial? A fight between The New York Times and Slate inspired us to try and figure that out.

After the Times ran a column giving employers tips on how to deal with Millennials (for example, they need regular naps) (I didn't read the article; that's from my experience), Slate's Amanda Hess pointed out that the examples the Times used to demonstrate their points weren't actually Millennials. Some of the people quoted in the article were as old as 37, which was considered elderly only 5,000 short years ago.

The age of employees of The Wire, the humble website you are currently reading, varies widely, meaning that we too have in the past wondered where the boundaries for the various generations were drawn. Is a 37-year-old who gets text-message condolences from her friends a Millennial by virtue of her behavior? Or is she some other generation, because she was born super long ago? (Sorry, 37-year-old Rebecca Soffer who is a friend of a friend of mine and who I met once! You're not actually that old!) Since The Wire is committed to Broadening Human Understanding™, I decided to find out where generational boundaries are drawn.